Do you have one example of someone who put a LGPL app in the app store and provided the binary object files?
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:58 PM Julius Bullinger <julius.bullin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21.02.2019 15:44, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > > Qt is free (on mobile), free as in liberty, as long as your > > application is free, as in liberty. > > That's basic (L)GPL rules. > > > > Now there's the business rules: > > If you want your (mobile) app to be non-free (as in proprietary), then > > you'll have to pay the Qt company for that. Disregarding the fact that > > you want to make money or not. > > Please do not spread this misinformation! As long as you adhere to the > terms of LGPL, you can create non-free, proprietary and closed apps with > Qt (or any other LGPL library for that matter). You only need to make > sure that the user can replace all LGPL parts with their own builds. > > The fact that the mobile OS's and app stores make it exceptionally hard > to do that is not an issue with the license terms. If you find a way > that enables the user to replace LGPL parts (for example by dynamic > linking or by making all object files and linking instructions available > on request), that's perfectly valid and legal. > > _That_ is a basic LGPL rule. > > > https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v2.1-(lgpl-2.1) > > https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-lesser-general-public-license-v3-(lgpl-3) > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest